Author Topic: Yak-3  (Read 3328 times)

Offline B-17

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2672
Re: Yak-3
« Reply #15 on: January 06, 2012, 06:09:28 PM »
Well, that's 1 down, BAR.

52426424425742542547552234756 66623242559 threads left to father.

:D

Offline Butcher

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5323
Re: Yak-3
« Reply #16 on: January 06, 2012, 06:21:11 PM »
I'd certainly vote on the Yak-3, however if they make a decent poll, it would be a tough choice.

I got my eye on the G.55, D.520, <insert random japanese fighter here>.

Tough choice, I would certainly vote on the D.520 first, much I find it to be an Ugly early war joke, It still looks perty to me.
JG 52

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: Yak-3
« Reply #17 on: January 06, 2012, 06:35:27 PM »
See Rule #12
« Last Edit: January 09, 2012, 11:21:43 AM by Skuzzy »
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"

Offline skorpion

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3798
Re: Yak-3
« Reply #18 on: January 06, 2012, 06:42:29 PM »
See Rule #12
« Last Edit: January 09, 2012, 11:21:55 AM by Skuzzy »

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: Yak-3
« Reply #19 on: January 06, 2012, 06:46:52 PM »
  1) VERY close to the yak-9 preformance wise
  2) Yak-9's aren't a bad substitute for Yak-3's
  3) other additions are much, much, MUCH more needed
+________________________________________________
=    Low priority, and later addition
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"

Offline skorpion

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3798
Re: Yak-3
« Reply #20 on: January 06, 2012, 06:52:11 PM »
  1) VERY close to the yak-9 preformance wise
  2) Yak-9's aren't a bad substitute for Yak-3's
  3) other additions are much, much, MUCH more needed
+________________________________________________
=    Low priority, and later addition
If its a low priority and should be a later edition, then why was it one of the top picks on the poll bro?

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: Yak-3
« Reply #21 on: January 06, 2012, 07:08:33 PM »
Because bro, people often don't care to fly anything that isn't what they view as 'top of the line'. Fast, well turning, and with guns lots and large.

Problem is that since people don't fly much EW/ early MW stuff, they don't know how much we're missing.... and even if they do, they wouldn't fly it even if we had it, so they don't care.

A child knows what it wants, but what it wants and whats good for it aren't the same thing.
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"

Offline skorpion

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3798
Re: Yak-3
« Reply #22 on: January 06, 2012, 07:39:28 PM »
Because bro, people often don't care to fly anything that isn't what they view as 'top of the line'. Fast, well turning, and with guns lots and large.

Problem is that since people don't fly much EW/ early MW stuff, they don't know how much we're missing.... and even if they do, they wouldn't fly it even if we had it, so they don't care.

A child knows what it wants, but what it wants and whats good for it aren't the same thing.
:rofl You are very funny, you know that?
The P38-J is a midwar bird, and is one of the most common 38's in the LWA, not to mention that people fly midwar spits in the LWA. Also, you forget that not everyone wants a late war monster plane. Not to mention the 100-ish people that play in E/MW arenas.

 If people want this plane, then obviously it should be added. you and one other guy are the only one giving a thumbs down bro. look at the support, you and some other guy wont get the idea shot down just because you disprove against the vast majority of the people that do want it.

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: Yak-3
« Reply #23 on: January 07, 2012, 12:32:21 AM »
Just saying, theres very few actual reasons why we should get this plane before the He-111, more italian planes, an actual bomber for the russians, and a crap load of other EW GV's.

It really doesn't offer anything over what we already have, and it doesn't fill any gaps.

I guarantee you, once the 'new' wears off, the percentage of yaks (all models) flown in all arenas will remain almost identicle to what it is now. I think people are imagining more than what they would get with this plane.


Looked at from a logical "why should we get this aircraft?" perspective, you'll see its really kind of pointless at the moment.
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"

Offline skorpion

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3798
Re: Yak-3
« Reply #24 on: January 07, 2012, 12:34:27 AM »
You say its a russian piece of crap, yet we have 6 russian planes in game. tell me, do we need another german plane? italian, obviously, but GV's arent on the top of the list right now. Not to mention its a great gap-filler for AvA and SEA events.

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: Yak-3
« Reply #25 on: January 07, 2012, 12:42:22 AM »
We need an He-111 much more than we need a Yak-3, and we could use (not really need though) another 109 variant to bridge the gap between the G6 and G14. A correctly modeled G-10 wouldn't be a bad choice. We need a russian bomber, such as the SB-2, or Tu-2, or something. Japan is also a bit lacking.


And the yak-3 is not a great gap filler for anything. Any action where the Yak-3 is significant, the Yak-9 can fill in for it VERY well. Its slightly faster, and climbs a tad worse. Aside from that, their preformance is pretty damn close.
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"

Offline skorpion

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3798
Re: Yak-3
« Reply #26 on: January 07, 2012, 12:47:55 AM »
We need an He-111 much more than we need a Yak-3, and we could use (not really need though) another 109 variant to bridge the gap between the G6 and G14. A correctly modeled G-10 wouldn't be a bad choice. We need a russian bomber, such as the SB-2, or Tu-2, or something. Japan is also a bit lacking.


And the yak-3 is not a great gap filler for anything. Any action where the Yak-3 is significant, the Yak-9 can fill in for it VERY well. Its slightly faster, and climbs a tad worse. Aside from that, their preformance is pretty damn close.
Figures, you know the luftweenies were told not to engage the Yak-3 right? so why do we need another 109? The Yak-9 cannot fill the Yak-3 roll perfectly because its not the damn plane itself bro. I dont really care if you think we need another plane first, the Yak-3 obviously beat whatever your trying to put up. Just look at all the good marks for the Yak-3 in this thread, and in the recent poll.

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: Yak-3
« Reply #27 on: January 07, 2012, 01:02:42 AM »
Your point about some sketcy order that might not have happened is.... what exactly?

He-111 was about 100 times as significant historicly as the Yak-3 is, was used throughout the entire war, and served on every front the Germans fought on. Another 109 variant would actually add something significantly different preformance wise, and let us fill a gap in scenarios between early-mid 1943, and mid-late 1944. The Yak-3 on the other hand would only be useable in mid 1944 and later scenarios, and wouldn't even be significantly different from the Yak-9 preformance wise.

Basicly every other Italian plane beats it on the priority list, as to many japanese aircraft. So do most Russian bombers.


Just look at the preformance of the Yak-3 and compare it to that of the Yak-9. Then you'll see why it doesn't fill a single gap, and isn't needed any time soon.
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"

Offline skorpion

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3798
Re: Yak-3
« Reply #28 on: January 07, 2012, 01:12:15 AM »
"doesnt fill a single gap"

Your saying we dont need the Yak-3 because the Yak-9U does everything exactly like the Yak-3?

Your funny!

Offline Mar

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2203
Re: Yak-3
« Reply #29 on: January 07, 2012, 01:25:50 AM »
"doesnt fill a single gap"

Your saying we dont need the Yak-3 because the Yak-9U does everything exactly like the Yak-3?

Your funny!

 :bhead




In other news,

G.55
Yak 3

in that order, is my vote.
𝒻𝓇𝑜𝓂 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓈𝒽𝒶𝒹𝑜𝓌𝓈 𝑜𝒻 𝓌𝒶𝓇'𝓈 𝓅𝒶𝓈𝓉 𝒶 𝒹𝑒𝓂𝑜𝓃 𝑜𝒻 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝒶𝒾𝓇 𝓇𝒾𝓈𝑒𝓈 𝒻𝓇𝑜𝓂 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝑔𝓇𝒶𝓋𝑒

  "Onward to the land of kings—via the sky of aces!"
  Oh, and zack1234 rules. :old: